Your
tax proposal would require most Minnesota property owners and renters to pay
higher property taxes. The property tax is the most regressive and unfair of
all state and local taxes. Minnesota businesses pay four times more in property
taxes than they do in either corporate income taxes or individual income taxes
on business income.Your budget would
increase property taxes on Minnesota businesses by $89 million in 2012.

By contrast, my proposal makes our tax
system more progressive, and it raises taxes only on the top 2% of
Minnesota income earners.Ninety-eight
percent of all Minnesotans would pay no
higher state income or property taxes under my proposal.

On a positive note, I appreciate that the
Legislature included conformity to most federal tax law changes in the bill and
included provisions necessary to maintain Minnesota's conformity to the
streamlined sales and use tax agreement.We agree on the importance of expanding and improving the Research &
Development Tax Credit and the Angel Investor's Tax Credit.I would consider supporting other measures,
such as the single apportionment formula for business, if we can agree on an
overall revenue target for this bill.

Chapter
No. 38 makes unnecessary and geographically imbalanced cuts to local government aids, which the Minnesota Department of Revenue
estimates would reduce funding for critical local services by over $400 million
and increase property taxes by over $400 million next year and by over
$1.2 billion during the next three
years.Those property tax increases
would fall disproportionately on low and middle income Minnesotans.

Over 20%
of your budget solution calls for shifting the state's budget problem to local
units of government and property taxpayers. More specifically, Chapter 38:

•reduces local government aid (city LGA)
by nearly 30% in FY2012-13, and eliminates aid
entirely for selected communities;

•cuts property
tax refund payments to 308,000 renters statewide by an average of 45%,
including 85,000 senior and disabled renters, many of whom are on fixed incomes.Property tax refund payments would be entirely eliminated for 72,000 renters.

After
making those cuts to local governments—which would result in significant property tax increases—your bill then
directs over $200 million from those cuts to expanded tax expenditures for
corporations and others.Further, while
advocating for reductions in local government spending, your bill
extends authority for local options sales tax to nine cities and grants special
tax increment financing authority to others.The Department of Revenue estimates that your local options sales tax
provisions will increase sales taxes on
Minnesotans and visitors by about $17 million per year.

Chapter
No. 38 includes other problematic provisions, such as various changes to
mineral tax laws and the language specifying how the State of Minnesota is to
re-establish an income tax reciprocity agreement with Wisconsin.Additionally, the operating budget and workforce reductions in Chapter No. 40 will
diminish the Department of Revenue's ability to effectively collect projected
voluntary and compliance revenue.

Your
budget solution, which results in the bottom 90% of households paying nearly 20% more of each dollar of income in state and local
taxes than do the top 10%, is unacceptable to me.Under your proposal, Minnesota's state and
local tax system would become more
regressive.My proposal, on the other
hand, asks the state's wealthiest 2% to
contribute to solving our budget challenge and, even after this increase, the
wealthiest 2% would still pay a smaller share of their incomes in state and
local taxes than other Minnesotans.

In
sum, Chapter No. 38 would destabilize the state-local finance system, make the
tax system more regressive and more complex,
and exacerbate our ongoing budget challenges by beginning new tax expenditures
in future years and eliminating state budget
reserves.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 42
(Chapter No. 38), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE OF
MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR

SAINT PAUL 55155

May 24, 2011

The
Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker
of the House of Representatives

The
State of Minnesota

Dear Speaker Zellers:

With
this letter, I am vetoing and returning H. F. No. 934, Chapter No. 42, the Education Finance Bill.I do so with the hope that we can come together to find a compromise: a balanced solution without the
damaging cuts and harmful policy items contained
in this legislation.

Legislators from both parties have worked
well with Education Commissioner Cassellius and with
me, to find areas of common within this bill.I thank them for their thoughtful and persistent work.Ensuring an excellent education for all
Minnesota students should be among our
highest budget priorities.Having worked
together on the alternative pathways to licensure bill, I know we can
find compromise.I am encouraged by the potential to find common ground in this
bill in early reading proficiency and recognition
of high-achieving schools.I am hopeful
that we can build on those areas of agreement.

Unfortunately, this Education
Finance Bill would have very harmful effects on students, on teachers, and on
schools.I will not sign an education
funding bill that pits student-against-student or
district-against-district.I have consistently stated my intention to increase education
funding, which is why my original budget included $36 million in new funding
for schools.Subsequently, in agreement
with the Legislature's desire to put additional
money on the per pupil formula, I proposed to increase the formula allowance by
$50 per pupil in each fiscal year of the biennium, for a total of $164 million
in new education investments.By
contrast, this bill cuts school funding by nearly $44 million below current
base-funding level.Within those
reductions, it unfairly and disproportionately shifts funding among school
districts.

The cuts to special education would create
significant funding gaps that would force
school districts to shift funds from general education programs, increase class
sizes, or raise property taxes, just to maintain their current levels of
special education services.Additionally, the elimination of integration revenue and freezing of
compensatory revenue wrongfully harms poor children and children of
color, which I will not accept.

None of Commissioner Cassellius
and my education proposals are contained in this bill; most notably, funding
for optional all-day Kindergarten and initiatives in early childhood
education.The bill also contains numerous policies, including school grading,
collective bargaining limitations, teacher evaluation, and Common Core
prohibitions, which are controversial, are punitive to teachers, and have
little research to support their efficacy in improving student learning and
closing achievement gaps.I am
disappointed that the bill creates a private school voucher program, an experiment
that has not worked in other states.Until our public schools are funded at adequate and sustainable levels,
a diversion of public dollars to private schools is unwise.

The funding cuts to the
Department of Education were reduced in this bill, which I certainly appreciate.However, when combined with the 15% staff reductions in the State
Government bill, the agency would be faced with the loss of at least 30
fulltime employees.Cuts of this nature,
on top of eight years of cumulative budget reductions, would further hinder the
Department's already limited capacity to provide technical assistance, support, and oversight to schools
throughout Minnesota.

Budgets are about priorities, and priorities are about
choices.We can choose to work together,
compromise, and create a budget that fairly spreads the burden we must all
shoulder if we are to weather these tough times and position Minnesota for
future success.I know that working
together we can create a reform-minded blueprint for our state's K-12
education, of which we can all be proud.

Each of us started our budget
proposals by making a choice.I chose a
balanced approach to our budget; one that included
both significant cuts, but asked the top two percent
of Minnesotans to pay more to ensure our quality of life and the services millions
of Minnesotans depend on.My approach
chooses not to balance the budget on the backs of the other ninety-eight percent of Minnesotans.

In the
spirit of compromise, more than one week ago, I cut my proposal in half, in the
hopes that an offer to meet in the middle would spur action towards the
balanced solution the people of Minnesota have asked for.

Instead, you chose to present
me with an all-cuts approach, one that has serious consequences for
Minnesotans, and that I do not believe is in line with our shared commitment to build a better Minnesota.

From the beginning of this legislative
session, it has been clear that compromise would be necessary to balance our
state's budget.In November, Minnesotans
voted for a divided government, and I
believe, in their wisdom, they did so because they want part of what each of us
has to offer, and they want us to work together to solve the state's budget crisis and build a better Minnesota.

Compromise is never easy,
because each person must give up something that is important.Compromise requires us to agree to items that we don't agree with.That is the
only way we will reconcile our differences on the state's budget.I am returning this bill to you with
the hope that you will choose to work with me, to find a fair, responsible, and
balanced solution.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 934
(Chapter No. 42), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT PAUL 55155

May 24, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of
Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

With this letter, I am vetoing and
returning H. F. No. 1010, Chapter No. 46, the Environment, Energy and Natural
Resources Finance Bill.Reductions at
the levels proposed in this bill to the MPCA, DNR, BWSR and the Department of
Commerce would have harmful effects on Minnesotans throughout our state.

In regard to the MPCA's budget, the
reduction of 67% to the general fund appropriation hits a few key areas
especially hard.Some of the cuts will
directly undo the gains made in the timely environmental review and permitting
of projects my executive order and H. F. No. 1 accomplished earlier this
year.Specifically, the elimination of
general fund dollars and staff for MPCA's environmental assistance and
multimedia programs is estimated to result in 30 to 45 day delays in wastewater
permits for industries and municipalities.

MPCA's clean water activities receive a
disproportionate reduction, including support for ambient surface water
monitoring, SSTS technical assistance, and Clean Water Partnership grants.Minnesotans wanted more resources to go to
these activities when they approved the dedicated funding constitutional amendment,
not fewer.

The Agency would also find it much harder
to respond to the increasing requests for assistance from citizens, businesses,
and its local partners.It is MPCA staff
regulated parties prefer to turn to, not high-priced consultants when seeking
help to comply with state and federal regulations.Equally troubling is the elimination of funding for the environmental health tracking and
biomonitoring program, which is a successful, cross‑agency collaboration we need to be
expanding, not abolishing.

My fiscal concerns related to MPCA are not
limited to funding reductions.I also
oppose the shifts and caps proposed in the bill.Moving penalties from the environmental fund
to the general fund (coupled with the significant general fund cuts)
effectively disconnects the penalty monies from their intended purpose—having the polluter pay for environmental protection.The reduction in dollars transferred from the
environmental fund to the remediation fund will extend the time it takes to
close the remaining closed landfills and require the program to operate at
higher staffing levels longer into the future—costing the taxpayers more in the long run.

In regard to the Department of Natural
Resources sections of the bill, I have concerns about using environment and
natural resources trust fund dollars to fund accelerated efforts to prevent
future spread of aquatic invasive species;
the state needs a long-term and dedicated funding source to build lasting
programs.I urge you to include
my Aquatic Invasive Species funding proposal to fund these important programs.

General
fund reductions to DNR water programs would negatively impact the Department's
ability to support critical water management activities, including dam safety, shoreland management, climatology, ground water monitoring,
and flood programs and damage reduction efforts.Managing the state's water supply is critical
to supporting drinking water for two-thirds of the state's population and
important industries throughout the state.

The general fund reductions for DNR forest
management programs would reduce the Department's ability to offer approximately
170,000 cords of wood for sale annually (out of an annual target of 800,000
cords).This has the effect of reducing
revenue by more than $3 million annually, and would have devastating impacts to
forest economies in northern Minnesota.These reductions will have huge impacts on Minnesota's forest product
industries and threaten thousands of jobs in northern Minnesota that depend on
the state's forest economy.In addition,
the language related to the State Forest Nursery program is problematic and needs
to come out of the bill.

Reductions to DNR's Divisions of Lands and
Minerals will result in reduced technical assistance and mineland
reclamation-permitting activities, resulting in reduced field inspections and
monitoring, delays in permitting decisions, and lengthened permit review
timeframes.

The bill does not include my
recommendation for restructuring of game and fish license fees and related funding initiatives for a conservation officer
academy, wildlife, and fisheries programs.This initiative has the strong support of the
hunting and angling community, and I urge your consideration of this proposal.

The
proposed reductions to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) come on top
of multiple reductions since FY02 that would total 46%.By necessity and ingenuity, BWSR and our
local government conservation partners have already implemented many
cost-savings and efficiency measures during that time period.There is no capacity to absorb $7M in cuts (26%)
in one biennium without compromising the ability of the agency and the local
governments to meet the agency's mission and the clean water and conservation
goals of the state.

The impacts to the core agency operations
and local government programs seriously jeopardize the ability of the state to
secure and implement projects with federal conservation funding, which brings
in over $100 million to Minnesota per year.USDA economic analysis (January 2010) shows that every dollar invested
results in $1.28 in total return within Minnesota and that one fulltime job is
created or maintained for every $107,250 of project funding.

This bill will significantly reduce
technical capacity statewide, resulting in delayed project design and
implementation, including many agricultural practices such as feedlot water
quality projects and soil conservation practices.The Federal Farm bill brings in the majority
of clean water and best management practice funds available in Minnesota.However, there is very little money available
for the technical assistance.It is the
responsibility of the state to fund technicians and engineers who get the
projects done.

With respect to the Department of Commerce
sections of the bill, there will be serious impacts on the Department's ability
to fulfill its mission to protect consumers and to ensure equitable commercial
and financial transactions and reliable utility services.The Department investigates and resolves
consumer complaints, regulates insurance and banking and business activity in
more than 20 other industries, advocates for the public's interest before the
Public Utilities Commission, and administers various state and federal
programs.

The
effects of the bill are substantial.The
bill contains a significant cut in the Administrative Services Division,
which provides department core functions, including the Financial Management,
Human Resources and Information Technology.The 31% cut, while offset by increases to unclaimed property staff,
hurts these core functions.

My budget contained an appropriation for
three positions for the Division of Energy Resources, which were not included
in the bill.These three positions would
help expedite rate case reviews and other regulatory filings that the
Department must process.There was no
net impact on the General Fund as the cost for these positions would be
assessed to the regulated utilities.These positions are supported by industry.

H. F. No. 1010 contains $29,707,000 in
special revenue fund transfers not contained in my budget.These funds are paid by businesses and
individuals for specific and limited purposes.Two of the fund transfers are particularly troubling:

•The bill transfers
$1,500,000 from the Auto Theft Prevention Account.Funds from this account are used for grants
to law enforcement and local units of government for auto theft prevention
programs.The transfer will
significantly curtail grant-making while the fund is restored to financial
health.

Two controversial policy provisions were
added to the bill during the conference committee process.Policy language on restrictions to new
coal-fired power was added by the conference committee and is highly
controversial.This issue is moving
through the legislative process on its own and has no place in an omnibus
budget bill.Additionally, the bill
transfers the Auto Theft Prevention Account from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Public Safety.The account is properly located at Commerce,
and I object to its transfer.

Finally, the interplay between the State
Government Finance bill and this bill only compound these already significant
impacts to Minnesota's quality of life, economic well-being (especially in
rural Minnesota), and the sustainability of Minnesota's valued natural
resources.The 15% reduction in staff
required by 2015 in the State Government Finance bill will result in valuable
workers being laid-off, in addition to those released because of this bill's
reductions.Not to mention the
additional cutbacks that each of them will be required to take because of the
Legislature's $95 million unallocated reduction in the State Government Finance
bill.

I trust we can work together in the coming
weeks to find a mutually agreeable resolution to these key government services.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 1010
(Chapter No. 46), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

There are areas on which we agree.I greatly appreciate your inclusion of a new trunk highway economic development account.This tool builds on the success of previous
initiatives for stimulating economic growth, and complements efforts to use
transportation infrastructure for building a vital economy in Minnesota.I understand that the Legislature intends to
also fund the Better Roads initiative, which I recently proposed.It is a very important program to improve
pavements on the trunk highway system around the
state.I look forward to working with
you further on this program.

Your funding of many other
transportation-related programs at the levels I recommended is also greatly appreciated.I remain optimistic that, with your
leadership, the final budget will move closer to a more balanced perspective
that invests in multimodal transportation programs so that we can continue to
provide the quality transportation system Minnesotans expect.

However, in its current form, this bill would seriously
underfund transit, resulting in drastic fare increases and cuts to
services.It also fails to invest in our
transportation future, including passenger rail and modernization of Driver and
Vehicle Services.

I believe that providing comprehensive and reliable transit
services, both in the Metro Area and in Greater Minnesota, are essential
components of the transportation system in Minnesota.Transit services improve labor market
efficiency, freeway performance, and air quality in the metro area, while
sustaining economic viability in Greater Minnesota.The draconian cuts to transit in this bill
are unacceptable to me.

My budget spared transit funding from cuts due to the critical
nature of public transportation and its connection to jobs and the
economy.This bill moves in a very different
direction.This bill cuts $109 million
from the state's general fund commitment to Metro area transit for the
biennium—an 85 percent reduction.

Cuts of this magnitude will fundamentally change the
availability of transit services in the region.This cut would mean:

•An across-the-board fare increase of 50
cents (29% increase from base fare of $1.75); resulting in the loss of 6.8
million rides, 8% of annual ridership; and

•Service reduction of 241 buses, 30% of the
service on the street, resulting in the loss of 20 million rides, 23% of annual ridership.

Combined, the fare increase and service reduction would result
in 27 million fewer rides a year, 31% of annual ridership, as well as the
layoff of 610 Metro Transit employees, 22% of Metro Transit's workforce.

This bill includes options allowing the Metropolitan Council to
reduce the bill's impact on transit.Unfortunately, the choices fall short of addressing the cuts and would
shift the Metropolitan Council property taxes for essential and economically
sensitive non-transit activities to transit.

The bill also cuts the general fund appropriation for Greater
Minnesota transit by $3.729 million per year.Transit plays an important role in many of the communities outside metro
areas, providing a transportation option to people who are unable to
drive.Transit in Greater Minnesota
keeps people in their communities, in their homes, greatly improves their
quality of life, reduces the cost of long-term care, and helps sustain viable
communities across Minnesota.

This decrease in spending would result in a reduction of about
101,000 hours of service per year, approximately a 10% cut.That would result in the loss of about 50
jobs.It would lead to a loss of
mobility for thousands of Minnesotans, making it much more difficult for them
to get to work, medical services, school, and shopping.People who use local public transit are
disproportionately elderly, disabled, or low income.

Additionally, the lack of an appropriation
for passenger rail activities results in the elimination of the Mn/DOT Passenger Rail Office.If there were no state general funds for the
Passenger Rail Office, federal funds for rail activities would be
relinquished.Mn/DOT
would obtain no federal funds for intercity passenger rail activities, and
private sector jobs for the next steps on passenger rail would occur in other
states.As a condition of receiving
federal funding, Mn/DOT's Passenger Rail Office is
required to administer and manage existing agreements, and ensure federal grant
requirements are met.Mn/DOT is already under contract for several passenger rail
activities.Additional activities that
would end include discussions on a partnership with Wisconsin and Amtrak to
establish a second, daily train service to Chicago, and grant applications for
the next round of federal TIGER funds anticipated for this summer/fall.

Experience in other regions of the US, and other countries
around the world, has demonstrated that people value passenger rail
service.Investments in passenger rail
development are an opportunity to leverage existing private investments with
public investment to improve efficiency and capacity of both freight and
passenger rail service in Minnesota.I
think it is imperative that we find compromise to keep the rail office open and
functioning.

I am disappointed at the failure to extend the Driver and
Vehicle Services technology fee to 2015.This funding is essential to complete the Minnesota License and
Registration System (MNLARS), the state's new information system for vehicle
and driver's license-related records and transactions.MNLARS will be relied upon by the courts, law
enforcement, automobile dealers, and various other stakeholders—as well as the
public.

On top of the impacts listed above, the State Government bill
also includes items that impact transportation agencies negatively.A 15% reduction in personnel for Mn/DOT, in addition to the 400 employees taking early
retirement in fiscal year 2011, will result in a potentially serious loss of
institutional knowledge.It will have an
unacceptable impact on service levels in key functions like engineering,
highway maintenance, and delivery of construction programs of around $1 billion
per year.

The fleet management provision is likely to increase costs for Mn/DOT.Mn/DOT has a highly developed fleet management system,
which is administered by certified fleet managers.It is very likely that purchasing fleet
management from a central pool will only add additional overhead without
additional efficiency.

Finally, the information technology consolidation will cause
unintended inefficiencies in agency operations, and will add cost to Mn/DOT IT functions.Mn/DOT has over 100 specialized information
technology applications, such as traffic management systems and bridge design
software.A previous consolidation of
email service resulted

in higher costs and reduced service levels for Mn/DOT.The consolidation of IT services, at the same
time the agency is reducing staff, managing construction volumes of historically high proportions, and
implementing a new, statewide accounting system will inevitably reduce
efficiency and affect service delivery for Mn/DOT.

I trust we can work together to find a
compromise solution.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 1140
(Chapter No. 49), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
24, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

With this letter, I am vetoing and
returning H. F. No. 1101, Chapter No. 50, the Higher
Education Finance Bill.The deep cuts
for the University of Minnesota and Minnesota's State Colleges and Universities
would cause hundreds of faculty layoffs, tuition increases, and fewer courses
available to students.Minnesota would
have a harder time providing employers with employees who have the skills and
education they require.When the future
of our state depends on strong institutions of higher education, H. F. No. 1101
includes, in real dollars, the deepest cuts to higher education in our state's
history.

The cuts of 19% to the University of
Minnesota and 14% to MnSCU are far too extreme.The total appropriations leave both the
University of Minnesota and MnSCU with substantially
lower levels of state funding at the same time they are serving 50,000 more
students.Your bill contains $240
million less than my recommendation and is unacceptable to me.

The combination of reduced funding and
tuition caps included in the bill would unwisely limit the systems' abilities
to manage the severe funding reductions.The proper entities to make final tuition decisions within our two state
systems are the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents and MnSCU's Board of Trustees.

The funding for the Office of Higher
Education is also too low.The
reductions for administrative support would limit the agency's ability to
provide critical services, such as student financial aid:work-study, grants, and loans.The combined effects of additional cuts
proposed in the State Government bill could force on OHE a 42% reduction in
staff funded through the General Fund.

The bill contains a policy provision that
prohibits the use of state or federal funds to support human cloning or to pay
for any expenses incidental to human cloning.The definition included in the bill is vague and could threaten further
development of stem cell research.It is
imperative for Minnesota's bio-medical future that both the University of
Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic approve of any language affecting this vital area
of research, which has the potential to bring thousands of jobs to Minnesota
and save many thousands more lives.

The choices we made as leaders are a
reflection of our values and priorities. Our colleges and universities, as well as our
highly-skilled and educated workforce, are part of what make Minnesota
great.I am returning this bill to you
with the hope that we can come together and compromise, and demonstrate our
commitment to our students and to higher education in Minnesota.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 1101
(Chapter No. 50), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
24, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

Please
be advised that I have received, approved, signed, and deposited in the Office
of the Secretary of State H. F. Nos. 493, 895, 1326 and 1343.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

ST. PAUL 55155

The
Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker
of the House of Representatives

The
Honorable Michelle L. Fischbach

President
of the Senate

I
have the honor to inform you that the following enrolled Acts of the 2011
Session of the State Legislature have been received from the Office of the Governor
and are deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State for preservation,
pursuant to the State Constitution, Article IV, Section
23:

Please
be advised that I have received, approved, signed, and deposited in the Office
of the Secretary of State H. F. Nos. 57, 186, 650, 258, 229,
844, 695, 808 and 763.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

ST. PAUL 55155

The
Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker
of the House of Representatives

The
Honorable Michelle L. Fischbach

President
of the Senate

I
have the honor to inform you that the following enrolled Acts of the 2011
Session of the State Legislature have been received from the Office of the
Governor and are deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State for preservation,
pursuant to the State Constitution, Article IV, Section
23:

With this
letter, I am vetoing and returning H. F. No. 460, Chapter No. 47, a bill
forbidding the State Building Code, the State Fire Code, or political
subdivisions from requiring the installation of anti-fire sprinklers in a new
or existing single-family home.

This requirement
is part of the International Residential Building Code, which will soon be
considered for adoption in Minnesota.Any objections to such a policy are best considered through the regular
code adoption process, allowing adequate notice and time for fact gathering and
a public hearing.

Evidence supports the use of sprinklers in
promoting the safety of home residents and their property.Further, the concerns brought forward by fire
safety professionals need to be addressed.They cite the fact that newly built homes burn more quickly and that
more of their fire fighters are being injured when floors collapse during
fires.With sprinkler systems in place,
fires can be more easily contained, resulting in fewer injuries.I simply do not see how we can further
jeopardize the lives of the individuals whose mission is to protect the public
and who risk their lives on a daily basis.

For these reasons, I have vetoed this
bill.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 460
(Chapter No. 47), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
25, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

I have
vetoed and am returning H. F.No. 201, Chapter No. 56.

H. F. No. 201 infringes upon a
woman's basic right to health and safety—a right every woman has, regardless of
how she receives her health coverage.Our place is not between a
woman and her doctor. The law already prescribes
that state funding may only be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest,
for health or therapeutic reasons, and when a woman's life is in danger. H. F. No. 201 would interfere with critical and difficult medical
decisions.

Furthermore,
it is unclear which other programs would also be subject to the prohibitions of
H. F. No. 201, because the bill does not
contain a definition of a "state-sponsored health program." Thus it might apply to state employees who pay premiums to state
healthcare plans and to private healthcare programs regulated bythe state.

All
women deserve to be healthy and safe.I
will not approve a bill that infringes upon a woman's
Constitutionally-protected rights, discriminates against a woman because of her
socio-economic status, or does not protect her health and safety.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 201
(Chapter No. 56), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

H. F. No. 936 infringes upon a woman's basic right to health
and safety.The bill forces doctors to
make critical medical decisions, but prevents them from considering the best
interests of their patients.This is not
consistent with standards of good medical practice.

Medical research, findings, and conclusions are best left to
experts who are trained to make medical, not political, decisions, and who are
in the best position to protect a woman's health.

Our place is not between a woman and her
doctor.Imposing civil penalties and
making it a felony for a doctor to deliver care that is in the best interest of
the patient is unconscionable.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 936
(Chapter No. 59), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
25, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

With this letter, I am vetoing and returning H. F. No. 562,
Chapter No. 73, a bill regulating water and sewer
charges by manufactured home parks and repealing the prohibition on air
admittance valves.

Approximately 180,000 individuals reside in manufactured home
parks throughout the state.The vast
majority—an estimated 80 percent—are low- or very-low income.This bill puts residents at risk for an
unjustified increase in the cost of residing there.As responsibility for buying water shifts
from the park owner to the resident, rent should be renegotiated to reflect
that it no longer buys water.I cannot
support legislation that could drive up rent for some of the poorest
Minnesotans, especially while high unemployment persists.

The bill also repeals the statutory ban on
air admittance valves in plumbing systems, enacted in 2007.Air admittance valves are prohibited because
of the danger they may fail and allow sewer gas to leak into the home.Until their reliability has proved itself
over time in other states, repealing the ban in Minnesota is premature.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 562
(Chapter No. 73), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

ST.
PAUL 55155

The
Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker
of the House of Representatives

The
Honorable Michelle L. Fischbach

President
of the Senate

I
have the honor to inform you that the following enrolled Act of the 2011 Session
of the State Legislature has been received from the Office of the Revisor and is deposited in the Office of the Secretary of
State for preservation, pursuant to the State Constitution, Article IV, Section 23:

S. F.

No.

H. F.

No.

Session Laws

Chapter No.

Date Filed

2011

130888May
25

Sincerely,

Mark
Ritchie

Secretary
of State

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
27, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

With this letter, I am vetoing and
returning H. F. No. 988, Chapter No. 94, a bill that modifies who is eligible
to be represented by a public defender.

I understand this bill is based on recommendations
of the Legislative Auditor.Additionally, I understand the need for more objective criteria for
judges when making these determinations.

However, I am troubled that the tiered
income levels for public defender eligibility are far too low.Under the bill, an offender must be at or
under 125% of the federal poverty guidelines for misdemeanor crimes, 150% for
gross misdemeanors, and 175% for felonies.For a single person, 125% of the poverty level is $13,612, 150% is
$16,335 and 175% is $19,057.Many
Minnesotans whose income is very low could not secure quality legal counsel
given these thresholds.

The
Constitution guarantees a right to counsel.This bill will have serious consequences for low-income individuals
seeking counsel.I cannot support it.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 988
(Chapter No. 94), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
27, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

With this letter, I am vetoing and
returning H. F. No. 264, Chapter No. 101, a bill prohibiting civil actions against
certain persons for weight gain as a result of consuming certain foods.

As I informed the House author, I support
the bill's expressed intent to hold individuals responsible for their own
dietary choices.I could support
legislation limited to that intention.

Unfortunately, this bill provides to
companies that manufacture, distribute, or sell food and nonalcoholic beverages
civil immunity, except for:"any
other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the
manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food,
if the violation is knowing and willful…."That requirement of being "knowing and willful" creates too
broad an exemption from liability, according to legal experts with whom I
consulted.

I am told that the Senate Committee on
Judiciary and Public Safety removed this provision in its passage of the bill, however, the full Senate reinstated the original House
language.That is unfortunate, as it reportedly
precluded bipartisan support for the bill.

Given
these concerns, I cannot support this legislation in this form.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 264
(Chapter No. 101), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

With this letter, I am vetoing and
returning H. F. No. 1381, Chapter No. 114, the Omnibus
Education Policy Bill.While there are a
number of provisions in this bill with which I agree, several must be removed
or resolved before I can support it.

I do appreciate the attention given to the
development and evaluation of school principals.While both are essential, one principal has
even greater impact upon an entire school than one teacher.For that reason, I cannot support principals
and assistant .principals being given only two years of probation, while
teachers are assigned three years of probation.Furthermore, the requirement in that section that a teacher, who has
completed successfully three years of probation in one school district, must
complete three more years on probation at a new school district, rather than
one currently, seems excessive and unwarranted, even with the school board's
option to modify it.

During the legislative process, the
Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius
requested that all of the teacher and principal effectiveness language in the
Omnibus Education Finance bill and in this one be combined into one bill or the
other.This integration did not
occur.All teacher and principal
effectiveness language should be contained in just one bill in order to ensure
equity and coherence.

Furthermore, this legislation places
unacceptable limitations on rulemaking related to academic standards.Every decision made in K-12 education starts
with state academic standards.The
Minnesota Department of Education follows a thorough process to update
standards according to guidelines passed by the Legislature.I note that DFL legislative majorities did
not impose this restriction on Governor Pawlenty.It unnecessarily adds another layer of
bureaucratic delay, which runs contrary to our shared desire to streamline
government decision-making and reduce its timelines.

This bill also prohibits the Commissioner
of Education from adopting Common Core Standards, which 42 other states have
adopted.US Secretary of Education Arne
Duncan called me specifically to urge my support of the Common Core Standards.

The bill's language, which allows school
districts to operate as charter schools, is also of concern.There are more questions than answers about
how these pilot projects would function, including how schools would be
governed, how funding would be allocated, who would be responsible for student
performance, and whether collective bargaining agreements would be
honored.This policy has not been crafted
carefully enough to be enacted.Questions
on several smaller changes to language on charter schools that were not
proposed by the Department of Education also need to be satisfactorily
resolved.

The language on home school reporting
should ensure oversight of compulsory attendance.There must be at least minimal accountability
to ensure all Minnesota's children are receiving a high quality education,
especially when public funding is used through nonpublic pupil aids.

For that reason, I have serious concerns
with the bill's striking the requirement in current law that:"If the results of the assessments in
paragraphs (a) and (b) indicate that the child's performance on the total
battery score is at or below the 30th percentile or one grade level below the
performance level for children of the same age, the parent must obtain additional
evaluation of the child's abilities and performance for the purpose of
determining whether the child has learning problems."

While I respect parents' rightful
prerogatives regarding the education of their children, society also has an
important stake in each child's educational success; for that child will either
become a contributing adult or a societal burden, depending in large part on
their educational attainment.

I am also extremely reluctant to sign any
education policy or funding bill, which does not contain language and/or
funding for early childhood education.During the floor considerations of H. F. No. 934, Chapter No. 42, the
Omnibus Education Finance Bill, the majorities in both the House and the Senate
and subsequently in the Conference Committee, took the extreme positions of
eliminating all language and funding for early childhood programs.Such drastic and misguided actions would
wrongfully reverse the state's modest progress in supporting this critically
needed service.

After all of the rhetoric during the legislative session about
closing the achievement gap, it is incomprehensible why early childhood
education programming and funding, which educational experts say is the key
first step toward education equity, would be eliminated.

I appreciate that provisions from the Department of Education
policy bill were included in this bill, such as changes to English language
learner standards and proposed changes to the charter schools statute.We share the goal of ensuring that all
students be reading by the end of third grade, and support many other policy
and technical provisions in the bill.I
look forward to working with you in the days and weeks ahead to resolve these
differences.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

[NOTE:Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c), the above vetoed bill, H. F. No. 1381
(Chapter No. 114), which was returned to the House by the Governor with his
objections, was laid on the table.]

STATE
OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR

SAINT
PAUL 55155

May
27, 2011

The Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The State of Minnesota

Dear
Speaker Zellers:

Please
be advised that I have received, approved, signed, and deposited in the Office
of the Secretary of State H. F. Nos. 387, 1405, 954, 1144, 1179
and 1105.

I
have the honor to inform you that the following enrolled Acts of the 2011
Session of the State Legislature have been received from the Office of the
Governor and are deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State for preservation,
pursuant to the State Constitution, Article IV, Section
23:

Please
be advised that I have received, approved, signed, and deposited in the Office
of the Secretary of State H. F. Nos. 1219, 753, 1023 and 232.

Sincerely,

Mark
Dayton

Governor

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

ST. PAUL 55155

The
Honorable Kurt Zellers

Speaker
of the House of Representatives

The
Honorable Michelle L. Fischbach

President
of the Senate

I
have the honor to inform you that the following enrolled Acts of the 2011 Session
of the State Legislature have been received from the Office of the Governor and
are deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State for preservation,
pursuant to the State Constitution, Article IV, Section
23:

Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(a) the
following bills, which were being considered by a Conference Committee at the
time of adjournment, were returned to the House and laid on the table and the
Conference Committees were discharged:

H. F. Nos. 821, 1011, 1234 and 1406.

Journal of the House - 2011 Supplement - Top of Page 5340

REPORT
PURSUANT TO JOINT RULE 3.02(b)

Pursuant to Joint
Rule 3.02(b) the following bills, which were re-referred to the House Committee
on Rules and Legislative Administration pursuant to Joint Rule 2.03, were
returned to the standing committee or division to which they were last
previously referred:

H. F. No. 1607 was
returned to the Committee on Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and
Finance.

H. F. No. 1643 was
returned to the Committee on Government Operations and Elections.

H. F. No. 1647 was
returned to the Committee on Ways and Means.

REPORT PURSUANT TO JOINT RULE 3.02(c)

Pursuant to Joint Rule 3.02(c) the following bills were
returned to the House by the Governor with his objections and laid on
the table: